DWS to Piers Morgan: How dare you call our entirely discredited cover story on Benghazi false, or something

posted at 10:01 am on October 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit included this in last night’s QOTD post, but it’s worth a separate look. If you’ve already watched this once, try this thought experiment the second time through. Pretend that the topic isn’t the terrorist attack on Benghazi in 2012, but the WMD case in Iraq in 2003-4. Suddenly, this sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

PIERS MORGAN: The really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who were in positions of responsibility and, we would assume, knowledge. And it’s pretty un-American, pretty un-American to be putting out completely false statements before you know the facts. Isn’t it?

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Piers, it is not, it is not OK for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements. They put out information that they had at the time based on the intelligence they were given and then as the days wore on and more…

MORGAN: That turned out to be completely wrong.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, that doesn’t mean it was false.

MORGAN: What??? Now wait a minute. If you put out a false statement, then it’s false, it’s wrong. It’s both of those things.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: But you’re suggesting that it’s … Piers, what you’re suggesting is that it was somehow deliberate. It was not deliberate. What they did was it was important to get information out that they had at the time. And they did that. And as they learned more information, they corrected the original information that they put out. But there was nothing sinister here. This was simply the president of the United States and the administration making sure that we did a careful investigation, gave the American people the information that they needed at the time that we had based on our best intelligence and then as more intelligence was gathered we gave the updated information. There is nothing sinister about that.

What’s terrible unfortunate though, is that you do — there’s no around these investigations that Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have left to go after the administration questioning whether or not there was any deliberate attempt to mislead. We should be closing ranks, working together to prevent this from happening again.

MORGAN: Well the answer to that Debbie, is — the answer to that is to make sure that the original statements that were made are accurate.

Morgan captures the attack from Democrats in 2003-4 pretty well, right down to the accusations of being “un-American.” There are a couple of differences, though. First, Piers Morgan didn’t actually accuse the White House of lying, just of rushing out with a story that turned out to be undeniably false, which also means wrong. As Jeff Dunetz points out, those two words mean the same thing. It’s the DNC chair who leaps to that conclusion, which might be a Freudian slip.

The other difference is in the timing. The WMD case was made with the best intelligence available before the invasion. This time, the White House pushed the false narrative out for more than a week after the attack, despite the fact that the Obama administration designated it a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours. There is also a 50-minute video taken from the compound that State was watching in real time, a fact noted specifically in yesterday’s hearings, that apparently makes pretty clear the nature of the “spontaneous protest” that UN Ambassador Susan Rice insisted five days later was the catalyst for the attack. State has yet to share that with anyone.

Democrats like Wasserman Schultz were certainly quick to equate wrong with lie in 2003-4. In this case, it’s revealing that she leapt to that same connection before Morgan did.

FYI, the reason Piers Morgan brought up “un-American” is that a few seconds before that clip starts, DWS was calling Republicans un-American for asking tough questions about the Benghazi attack. She started the patriotism games…Morgan was just hoisting her by her own petard.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Barack Obama, DWS, Hillary Clinton, and the whole Democrat party is not qualified to oversee picking up DogS$%^ from the sidewalk. We have 25 million people out of work, 14 plus percent unemployed/Underemployed, and the middle east burning.

Since the current blame is going on the Republicans for cutting funding, he should be in the clear.

Cindy Munford on October 11, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Cummings and Holmes kept pushing this narrative during the hearing yesterday, until Issa informed everyone that the funding was cut through a bipartisan bill that actually received one more Democrat vote than Republican.

QUOTE: “But there was nothing sinister here. This was simply the president of the United States and the administration making sure that we did a careful investigation, gave the American people the information that they needed at the time …” – Der Wa§§ermann Schutzstaffel

Ahhhhhh Yes.
When the facts aren’t on your side, dazzle ‘em with BS. Does anyone believe one word from D.ebbie W.ho S.creams bloody murder whenever she and her “fellow travelers” are caught in a lie?

So … DWS and her guru B. Hussein Obama are the gatekeepers re: the illegal military intervention in another country that is NONE of OUR (we the people) business.

“Facts? We don’t need no steenking facts! You’ll take what we give you and you’ll like it.”

Anyone who believes that the BHO cabal has OUR best interests at heart hasn’t been paying attention.
Let’s face it, any Congressional investigation will only reveal the number of perjurers willing to risk a prison sentence for ØbahØlder … fat chance with those two corrupt interlopers at the helm.
Before I transition to the ethereal world, I want to see perjury charges brought against a Democrat.
~(Ä)~

Meh. This is just a bunch of liberals — media and political — scrambling frantically to find their dropped hymn book — so they can all resume singing the same words to the same old tune. For them, Benghazi is just a temporary, unlooked-for intrusion by reality into their fantasy world.

The key was that she was still shilling the story long after better information would be available. The WMB business really was Saddam trying to bluff the Iranians, with consequences that were beyond his imagining.

Don’t you just love the defensiveness? Saw way too much of the mindset in the 1960’s at Hopkins going forward.

Barack Obama, DWS, Hillary Clinton, and the whole Democrat party is not qualified to oversee picking up DogS$%^ from the sidewalk. We have 25 million people out of work, 14 plus percent unemployed/Underemployed, and the middle east burning.

apparently you missed it the first time around, so I’ll repeat, slowly, so you can keep up…

But please… show us your evidence that CA is within reach. The polls say otherwise, but I’m sure a washed-up has-been can challenge them successfully…

JohnGalt23 on October 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Final point: We absolutely, positively must remember polling in 2012 is politicized as never before, and it is incumbent upon the consumers of political polls not to accept the data naïvely, but to perform due diligence to see what goes into the product.

Final point: We absolutely, positively must remember polling in 2012 is politicized as never before, and it is incumbent upon the consumers of political polls not to accept the data naïvely, but to perform due diligence to see what goes into the product.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM

So, I take that as you have no evidence to demonstrate that CA is within reach. All you have is doubt that the polls… all of the polls, BTW… have any relation to reality.

Admittedly, Morgan spews a lot of DNC talking points just like most every other LSM borg drone, but I believe applauding good acts like grabbing DWS and Toure by their greasy little horns and giving their heads a shake is the key to getting more good acts.

Pay attention to the “No Party” affiliation numbers. They are significant. They are for the most part conservatives and Libertarians who are fed up with the California GOP. The California GOP are worthless rat bastards. Registered Republicans 30.1% plus Independents 21.3% equal a greater percentage of voters 51.4% than the democrats. A percentage that is up for dumping Obama.

Pay attention to the “No Party” affiliation numbers. They are significant. They are for the most part conservatives and Libertarians who are fed up with the California GOP. The California GOP are worthless rat bastards. Registered Republicans 30.1% plus Independents 21.3% equal a greater percentage of voters 51.4% than the democrats. A percentage that is up for dumping Obama.

Pay attention to the “No Party” affiliation numbers. They are significant. They are for the most part conservatives and Libertarians who are fed up with the California GOP. The California GOP are worthless rat bastards. Registered Republicans 30.1% plus Independents 21.3% equal a greater percentage of voters 51.4% than the democrats. A percentage that is up for dumping Obama.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Interesting…

jimver on October 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Romney has about a snowballs chance in a supernova of carrying the DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornia).

But if the panicking team Obama diverts a few million there, that’s cool too.

Lord, I’m beginning to like Piers Morgan. Is this a surreal world, or what?

Dear God, please preserve Carney and Wasserman-Schmutz. The world needs clowns. Also, please, dear God, help to bring down Obama/Hillary and the medis over Benghazi. If you have a sense of justice, decency and irony, you’ll do it.

Pay attention to the “No Party” affiliation numbers. They are significant. They are for the most part conservatives and Libertarians who are fed up with the California GOP. The California GOP are worthless rat bastards. Registered Republicans 30.1% plus Independents 21.3% equal a greater percentage of voters 51.4% than the democrats. A percentage that is up for dumping Obama.

SWalker on October 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM

First of all, your evidence for the highlighted claim, if you please.

Okay. So, your electoral strategy is counting upon the vast majority of the NP voters to come out and vote GOP.

Let’s do the math here…

43.3% of the voters are Dems. 30.1% are GOP. In order to make that difference up, you would need 19.9 of the 21.3 NP’s to break GOP in order to get to 50%. That would be a break of approximately 93-7 in favor of the GOP.

SWalker, Romney is up by 8 in crazy Cali. You might be onto something…no, I don’t mean dope :)

Schadenfreude on October 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

No. He is up 8 from where he was… which was down 22.

He is down 14 points in CA, even after the first debate. He would have to have another bounce of equal size before CA was even moved into the Lean Obama column, much less a toss-up. The idea that he should spend one wooden nickel in CA is either insanity, Mobyism, or the word of a rank amateur.

Thanks, I live here, do you think I don’t know that :)…for every single one of us voting there are four of their moochas casting one (ore more :) too :)…the ‘interestimg’ comment was for the number of registered indies in cali…I guess I didn’t realize how many registered indiesare here…I mostly disregard politics and poll numbers here, knowing I cannot make an iota of difference…I will disciplinely cast my vote On the Election day though…decided not to do it through early ballot, there’s enough fraud going on, early ballot casting will only be conducive to more of that.might not matter in Cali. But it sure matters in the swing states…i wish they stopped this stupid early voting practice, keep it in place just for the military since they are voting from remote locations, or state-wide, but casting ballots in different states than the ones they reside in duty-wise.

CNN should be all over this– the State Dept basically called them unpatriotic for referring to Stevens’ journal they found in the consulate 3 days after the attack, which showed he knew he was on an “AQ hit list”. Hillary had to know this yet dissembled on it, just like the shameless DWS is doing now. And these people have the temerity to call others unpatriotic.

So, a DNC Chairman can be Bagdad Bob in drag for years; and all is forgiven in time for every new scandal she is hauled out to whitewash. Then she’s re-presented to the public with a completely clean slate.

She can even go so far as to intentionally falsify what she claimed were direct quotes from Israel’s Prime Minister – completely reversing his positions to suit the Democrats’ platform. A catastrophic malfeaseance that should have permanently ended any public figure’s career.

But all she has to do is jump into a spider hole for a couple of weeks, and the media forget about the whole thing and let her hop out and start over again, and again and again…. with nary a mention of anything she’s said or done in the past.

I feel your pain. I live in the sanest part of the Peoples Republic of Canuckistan (hence my screen name). You have Jerry Brown, we’ve had Pierre Trudeau and Jean Cretin.

Hence my interest in US politics and this, perhaps the most critical US election since the end of WW2. America is truly the lynch-pin of western civilization. If America falls, we’ll all go with it.

Alberta_Patriot on October 11, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Ah, don’t get me started on Trudeau :), my mother in law is French Canadian and adores him, though she is a staunch conservative currently, bit of a cognitive dissonance there, I know :)…but Trudeau is up there in her high regard, kinda like Bubba to traditional dems :).. I lived in Canada for two years, Toronto amd Nova Scotia, didn’t care much aout Toronto, just not my kinda place, but the Atlantic part of Canada is stunning…travelled pretty much everywhere of interest in canada, not Alberta though, don’t know how I missed on that every single time…I had a good friend from Calgary, when I lived in the UK, and he kept telling me about the amazing blue sky of Alberta in winter time…I understand your interest in the US politics, and it makes sense to anyone living in the western hemisphere, we are hanging together in this very fragile balance, we know what’s on the other side of the balance scale :(…gatly admire your big man, Harper, mainly for his stance on energy, I think Romney is from fhe same mold/cut (I am not going here into all that moderate squish thing), I am talking simply energy policies that will be key to turning this country around…that and some sane . Romney would have a great partner in Harper.

They knew an hour after the attack, then fabricated the lies. Now DWS is saying even though they lied they didn’t lie because…why? Run that by me again? Because they were lying when they made up the lie?

Didn’t get to read all the posts so I may be repeating someone: So then the WMD argument stands and the left can no longer blame Bush for those reports.

allstonian on October 11, 2012 at 11:21 AM

That all you got? Seriously? Weak dodge. “The decision to invade Iraq was based on reports from the CIA, the National Security Agency, the British MI-6, the French Surete, the Russian intelligence services and the Israeli Intelligence Service. ALL of them reported that Saddam possessed WMDs and now they are revealing evidence that Saddam DID transfer them to Syria just before the invasion. So do you recommend that we charge ALL of the intelligence agencies and prosecute them?”

“So President Bush lied to Congress in 2002 to get them to pass the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. That resolution contained 23 reasons to authorize force, many of them contained in the IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 & the IRAQI BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS also in 1998.
Did President Bush go back in time to lie to the Congress in 1998 as well? Let’s break down the 23 points and see where they are found.
+++
1. Iraq invaded Kuwait. — Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
2. Iraq was to agree to a U.N cease fire — Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998. Also found in Iraqi Breach of International Obligations.
3. Iraq had a large stockpile of chemical weapons and a biological and n uclear we apons program — Also found in Iraqi Breach of International Obligations.
4. Iraq thwarted w eapons inspectors — Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998. Also found in Iraqi Breach of International Obligations.
5. Iraq was in breach of the internations obligations up to 1998 — Specifically mentions the Iraqi Breach of International Obligations law. Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.”
6. Iraq still in breach of international obligations, still has a ch emical and b iological capability, and still seeking nuclear capability after 1998.
7. Iraq vi olated U.N resolutions by suppressing it’s ci vilian population and still has items stolen from Kuwait — Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998. Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
8, Iraq used W MD against other nations and its own people — Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
9. Iraq tried to kill former President George H.W. Bush and fi red on U.S. military — Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
10. Iraq harbors Al Qaeda members.

more reasons we went to Iraq:
11. Iraq harbors other terrorsts.
12. September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of t errorists gaining W MD.
13. Since Iraq has used WMD, there is a risk it may sell WMD to terrorists.
14. UN Se curity Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorized the use of all necessary means to enforce prior UN Re solutions including the development of WMD. Other UN reolutions told Iraq to comply with we apons ins pectors, stop suppressing its ci vilian population and thr etening its neighbors. — Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998. Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
15. Public Law 102-1 of 1991, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, was implemented because Iraq had failed to comply with the many UN Security Council Resolutions. –
Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998. Also found in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
16. Congress in December 1991, IRAQ AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 687 & 688, supports all necessary means to support UN Security Council Resolutions.
17. Mention of Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
18. On Sep 12, 2001, President Bush committed us to work with the U.N. Security Council to meet the common challenge posed by Iraq, to work for all necessary resolutions and enforce current ones.
19. The U.S. is commited to prosecute the War on Terror. Iraq supports international terrorism, has developed WMD, and has violated UNSC resolutions. All UNSC resolutions must be enforced by all means necessary including the use of force.
20. Congress has taken steps to pursue the War on Terror including provision of authorities and funding to take necessary actions against international terrorist organizations including those nations or organizations who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations.
21. Congress will continue to take action against those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations.
22. The President has the authority under the Constitution to act against and protect the U.S from terrorists under Public Law 107-40, Authorization for Use of Military Force, on September 18,2001.
23. It is in the national security interest of the U.S to restore peace the the Persian Gulf region.”

let’s not forget all the phony DEMS screeching about Saddam either..
“One way or other, we are determined to deny I raq the capacity to develop w eapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb 4, 1998
*
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by I raq’s w eapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb 17, 1998
*
We must stop Sadd am from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of the neighbors with w eapons of mass destruction.” Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
*
“He will use those w eapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, Feb 18, 1998
*
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect I raqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by I raq’s refusal to end its w eapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton-D Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others, Oct 9, 1998
*
“Sadd am Hus sein has been engaged in the development of w eapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the w eapons inspection process”.Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 12/16/98
*
“Huss ein has chosen to spend his money on building w eapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
*
“We begin with the common belief that Sadd am Hus sein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building w eapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
*
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical w eapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Sadd am Hus sein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological w.eapons stock, his m.issile delivery capability, and his nuclear program, He has also given aid, comfort, and sancturary to t.errorists, including al Qa eda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Sadd am Hus sein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical w.arfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear w eapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10 2002.

I’ve been asking those same questions since the movie-maker’s involvement and circumstances first became known. Until just recently – with the revelation of the regime’s lies – no one I talked about it with wanted to even consider that.
Now, others are beginning to question that, too; though I don’t know why people haven’t looked closer from the start.
It looks to me as though the guy was part of an operation (voluntary), semi-coerced but still “co-operating” with the government, or totally coerced and threatened with jail time, deportation or both.

Also note that, besides chemical weapons (WMD), there were 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium – which valarie plame’s husband swore didn’t exist – found and which was sold and shipped to Canada to their nuclear power program.

DWS in absolutely right.Just because the Administration knew all along (even in advance) that it was a terrorist attack, changed the story several times,erroneously blamed a movie trailer ,falsely stated that there was adequate security when in fact, there was no protective gates and no Marine guards– and never secured the embassy for days after the murderous attack-leaving valuable secret information and an ambassador’s diary to be picked up by others-and never sought any retaliatory action against the transgressors-doesn’t mean there was lying, a coverup, gross negligence and incompetence. The Democrats are lucky to have DWS!She has the perspicacity of a paper weight.

There’s a funny irony in Canadian politics. The people who have done the most to promote Quebec seperatism have been Quebecois (Rene Levesque, Lucien “Hop-along” Brouchard)while the people who have done the most for the Alberta Independence have also been Quebecois (Pierre Trudeau, Jean Cretin). :D

I had a good friend from Calgary,

Send him my condolences (I’m from Edmonton, it’s a hockey thing)

and he kept telling me about the amazing blue sky of Alberta in winter time…

He obviously didn’t mention the temperature.

I understand your interest in the US politics,

Living vicariously through our American brothers is common among Canadian conservatives (such as Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn).

For myself, I can honestly say I love your country more than your First Lady.

greatly admire your big man, Harper,

He is currently the only leader in the western hempisphere with the balls to tell the Mullahs of Iran to go themselves.

mainly for his stance on energy,

As an Albertan, I love the fossil fuel industry. However, the true future of technological civilization on this planet (and any others in the solar system) is in Nuclear Energy. Leaders on both sides of the border, and the political spectrum, need to take nuclear more seriously. Romney comes the closest to actually getting this out of most that I’ve seen. His proposals for overhauling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have a greater impact on Americans living 500 years from now than the drill-baby-drill crowd would have on those living 50 years from now.

Albertan, I love the fossil fuel industry. However, the true future of technological civilization on this planet (and any others in the solar system) is in Nuclear Energy. Leaders on both sides of the border, and the political spectrum, need to take nuclear more seriously. Romney comes the closest to actually getting this out of most that I’ve seen. His proposals for overhauling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have a greater impact on Americans living 500 years from now than the drill-baby-drill crowd would have on those living 50 years from now.

Alberta_Patriot on October 11, 2012 at 3:19 PM

i know nuclear, I’m French :)… 75 % of the electricity back in my native land is from nuclear energy. I’m also Californian, and nuclear is a dirty word here :(…erased entirely from our enlightened leaders’ vocabulary…
Out of two nuclear plants here, one is closed undefinitely…partially understandable, old + unfortunate location, proximity to st andreas fault, etc…but there are plenty of other states that can host them, or just build adequate ones in cali. For chrissake, the bloody French have more ballz and managed to do it right, and we can’t :)…

Jean Cretin lool :), correct and I concur, that’s the time I was in Canada in an exchange student program… My friend did mention the temperatures in Alberta :)… but hey, can’t be much worse than Toronto or Ottawa now, can it? :)…oh, wait :).. And Steyn is my favourite Canadian indeed, right before Harper :)…and I totally loathe the Titanic song chick (can’t bring myself to say her name :) and m moore :)…

Piers Morgan, not a very good interviewer. Letting this sitting duck spin away. I guess that’s the point of having her on. Score some consolation points and salvage a few of the regular viewers whose enthusiasm is sagging. I think even Larry King would have been more nimble.

What does 21.5 mean? Right side of the brain says Yes while left one says No?

You’re wasting time. Trust me, I was a resident there for more than 20 years and still have relatives and friends there, my wife’s family communist (going back to USSR days and her younger brother growing up in SF, enough said) and most of our friends conservative. Just a few in my wine tasting group being conservative and we were in great minority there.

I can easily conduct a poll in LA and SF areas, hell, most any area of the state these days, and end up with mostly liberals. You poll in Bakersfield and you get different numbers. Conservatives are greatly outnumbered, no poll out there will represent true state of affairs in this hell hole.